[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[thelonecrouton]

xpool.ca ?

xpool.ca mine other coins to pay DRK.

and drk`s when it is the most profit coin.
They are updated.

Yeah we mine DRK when it tops the profit charts. I also posted a block explorer link in that darkcointalk thread.

Cheers!

Stupid question about your 'shifts' - if I point my GPUs your way do they only hash certain hours a day or 24/7?

24/7. each algo is always mining profitable coins and exchanged. The shifts will eventually be a set period of time like 24 or 12 hours ideally. There just need to be more miners so there is enough coins mined and exchanged to make it worthwhile. So right now the shifts are 24-48 hours.

Thanks for the explanation.

[camosoul]

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI
MN = 6 ; OMGWTFBBQDEFAULT

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible.  No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat.  Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

Good point, I suppose.  It's basically a secondary revenue incentive for MN creation without hitting miners.  Sort of like a sales tax, your rate is proportional to your spending.  I still don't like the idea of charging more for it, for the reasons I mention above.  Maybe something like a sliding scale based on send amount would be ok.  I'm not going to be spending 10k DRK anytime soon, but some rich dude might.

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more? Do the MNs already get enough compensation for hosting the blockchain anyway? It's not so much about "buying more anon" but paying for the fact that it adds more fat. If the amount of fat added is inconsequential, then no reason to even have it be an option. It should be the default, and it should be the same for everyone if that is the case. This whole conversation is moot if the fat is not enough to care.

I can see a major problem with people choosing different mixing depths having to wait for other people to choose that much depth as well... Better to just find one depth and make it the default. I like the OMGWTFBBQ approach...

[crackfoo]

Stupid question about your 'shifts' - if I point my GPUs your way do they only hash certain hours a day or 24/7?

They work always but shift means that all generated btc will go to buy drk every day different algo does it. 1st day scrypt 2nd day sha 3rd day x11 and again....correct me if I`m wrong..

almost right, except the shift simply finish when enough has been mined and exchanged. If there happens to be a big spike in hash rate, the shift will end sooner. For now, until I can see there is a steady and consistent hash rates, the shift are manually ended when I see enough has collected for it.

Ideally I'd like to pay all algos, each day or even twice a day. But for that,  there needs to be at least ~3Th SHA256, 125Mh/s Scrypt and 2GH/s X11 consistently.

Not quite there yet, but I see scrypt just blew up and it's running ~310mh/s

Also with more coins to exchange more often, it allows a more consistent and plentiful DRK buying on the exchanges, pushing the prices up.

Which is good, but also, need to realize that it's going to make the payouts slightly less. Kind of a catch 22, but I think the end goal of a higher price is worth it.

[thunderdrum]

Hey guys I'm going to open by stating that I'm currently mostly invested in CLOAK. With that said, I wanted to ask some questions and maybe open an actually useful discussion instead of FUD.

1. I've been told that DRK's anonymity implementation is based on CoinJoin and that there might be an issue with this method that allows transactions to be traced. Could somebody with understanding better than mine explain? And maybe better explain the mood CLOAK intends to use as well?

2. Are the MasterNodes trustless?

3. Why do most of you consider PoS coins to be... PoS's?

Thanks, and let's keep this civil haha

1. DRK's CoinJoin implementation is much better than a regular CoinJoin transaction. Coming in RC4 is a split masternode system, where 2 masternodes are selected and then one splits your transaction amount into denominated units (1 DRK, 5 DRK, 10 DRK, and so on) before you send it to the other one for the actual transaction. No timing analysis can be done on the blockchain to see who denominated at any point in time. The only weakness is that if you own both masternodes, you can trace the payments because you are seeing realtime what clients belong to denominationed units and where those units end up. At some point we are getting IP obfuscation, as well as I2P.

I haven't looked at CLOAK (is it really all caps like that?) in some time, but I know in the beginning they were talking about sending coins through exchanges to remove taint.

2. Yes, masternodes are trustless. They cannot steal your coins. This is DRK's greatest feature. All the other implementations I've seen rely on trust. If CLOAK still works as I've described above, then it is laden with trust and therefore very insecure. It will work until it doesn't.

There is a caveat here though. DRK has a lot of masternodes hosted on Amazon. Amazon has access to the physical machines (which are most likely virtualized instances all the way down to the network switches and controllers). If they wanted to, they could map a great number of transactions. Someone proposed yesterday limiting masternodes 1 and 2 from being in the same IP address range, meaning 54.54.54.54 and 54.54.55.54 would never be selected as masternodes simultaneously. This seems like a good stepping off point to limit concentration of nodes on one provider. If 60% of nodes are hosted on Amazon and they cannot be simultaneously selected for the current round, that means the other 40% will be selected more of the time then Amazon nodes will. This will add an incentive to distribute masternodes across more providers.

3. Proof of stake merely enriches the rich, fuck that. At least with DRK you have to provide a service to the network to increase your wealth, and it is a greatly needed service at that.

People like humanitee make our community great. They are the wealth of the community.

[slapper]

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible.  No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat.  Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

Good point, I suppose.  It's basically a secondary revenue incentive for MN creation without hitting miners.  Sort of like a sales tax, your rate is proportional to your spending.  I still don't like the idea of charging more for it, for the reasons I mention above.  Maybe something like a sliding scale based on send amount would be ok.  I'm not going to be spending 10k DRK anytime soon, but some rich dude might.

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more? Do the MNs already get enough compensation for hosting the blockchain anyway? It's not so much about "buying more anon" but paying for the fact that it adds more fat. If the amount of fat added is inconsequential, then no reason to even have it be an option. It should be the default, and it should be the same for everyone if that is the case. This whole conversation is moot if the fat is not enough to care.

Agreed. I was using "network overhead" instead of "fat" 

[camosoul]

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible.  No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat.  Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

Good point, I suppose.  It's basically a secondary revenue incentive for MN creation without hitting miners.  Sort of like a sales tax, your rate is proportional to your spending.  I still don't like the idea of charging more for it, for the reasons I mention above.  Maybe something like a sliding scale based on send amount would be ok.  I'm not going to be spending 10k DRK anytime soon, but some rich dude might.

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more? Do the MNs already get enough compensation for hosting the blockchain anyway? It's not so much about "buying more anon" but paying for the fact that it adds more fat. If the amount of fat added is inconsequential, then no reason to even have it be an option. It should be the default, and it should be the same for everyone if that is the case. This whole conversation is moot if the fat is not enough to care.

Agreed. I was using "network overhead" instead of "fat"  

I chose fat because it's not just pipe and CPU, but storage. It's fat in every direction, so called it fat...

Nobody is bitching about how much bandwidth the BTC blockchain is using... They're not hosting it because it doesn't fit and there is no incentive to make it fit.

[coins101]

georgem is back with another morale booster...



Just keep on keeping on, and success will follow!

One way to trim the fat

[slapper]

Alright, sounds like the gauntlet has been thrown. Let's wait for the main man to see what he thinks.

[camosoul]

Hey guys I'm going to open by stating that I'm currently mostly invested in CLOAK. With that said, I wanted to ask some questions and maybe open an actually useful discussion instead of FUD.

1. I've been told that DRK's anonymity implementation is based on CoinJoin and that there might be an issue with this method that allows transactions to be traced. Could somebody with understanding better than mine explain? And maybe better explain the mood CLOAK intends to use as well?

2. Are the MasterNodes trustless?

3. Why do most of you consider PoS coins to be... PoS's?

Thanks, and let's keep this civil haha

1. DRK's CoinJoin implementation is much better than a regular CoinJoin transaction. Coming in RC4 is a split masternode system, where 2 masternodes are selected and then one splits your transaction amount into denominated units (1 DRK, 5 DRK, 10 DRK, and so on) before you send it to the other one for the actual transaction. No timing analysis can be done on the blockchain to see who denominated at any point in time. The only weakness is that if you own both masternodes, you can trace the payments because you are seeing realtime what clients belong to denominationed units and where those units end up. At some point we are getting IP obfuscation, as well as I2P.

I haven't looked at CLOAK (is it really all caps like that?) in some time, but I know in the beginning they were talking about sending coins through exchanges to remove taint.

2. Yes, masternodes are trustless. They cannot steal your coins. This is DRK's greatest feature. All the other implementations I've seen rely on trust. If CLOAK still works as I've described above, then it is laden with trust and therefore very insecure. It will work until it doesn't.

There is a caveat here though. DRK has a lot of masternodes hosted on Amazon. Amazon has access to the physical machines (which are most likely virtualized instances all the way down to the network switches and controllers). If they wanted to, they could map a great number of transactions. Someone proposed yesterday limiting masternodes 1 and 2 from being in the same IP address range, meaning 54.54.54.54 and 54.54.55.54 would never be selected as masternodes simultaneously. This seems like a good stepping off point to limit concentration of nodes on one provider. If 60% of nodes are hosted on Amazon and they cannot be simultaneously selected for the current round, that means the other 40% will be selected more of the time then Amazon nodes will. This will add an incentive to distribute masternodes across more providers.

3. Proof of stake merely enriches the rich, fuck that. At least with DRK you have to provide a service to the network to increase your wealth, and it is a greatly needed service at that.

People like humanitee make our community great. They are the wealth of the community.

To expound: The desire is to prevent transaction-involved nodes from being provider-concentrated. I think this would be a great spork feature. If single-provider becomes a problem, switch this on to force de-consolidation. If it's not so bad, shut it off. It can toggle any time...

[camosoul]

georgem is back with another morale booster...



Just keep on keeping on, and success will follow!

One way to trim the fat

OM NOM NOM NOM NOM!! SELL ME YOUR.... Nevermind...

Donation inbound!

[Ignition75]

This is darkcoin community multipool.
Join us!!
More horse power more buy preasure we do.
For the future of drk. In drk we trust.

Earn your own DRK coins by mining at the multipool. Not only that, you can earn DRK using your old ASIC hardware on SHA256 and SCRYPT coins!

DarkCoin by xpool - DRK Multipool

 

http://www.xpool.ca

PROP reward system

DRK Payouts

Scrypt & SHA256 & X11 Algo's

DDoS Protected

High Performance Backend

Simple setup and usage

0% Fees while in BETA

To mine:

http://www.xpool.ca/get_started

How does it work?

xpool offers 3 different sets of coins to mine. SHA256, Scrypt and X11. Each algorithm runs on a shift. Currently there is no set interval as there needs to be enough found and confirmed blocks to make trading worthwhile on the exchanges. We don't want to finish a shift only to find out, the exchanges are going to eat up the payout in fees or limit the withdraw with a large minimum. The confirmed coins are traded throughout the duration of the shift automatically to maximize the profits from exchanging them into DRK. Once enough confirmed blocked are accumulated, the shift is moved into "Trading" status while all the exchanged coins are calculated into DRK and then queued for payment. Once all the coins are confirmed as successfully traded and exchanged, the DRK payments are sent.

As the pool picks up more hashing speed and sufficient DRK can be picked up from the exchanges, the shifts will be set to a schedule and payouts more frequent and less worry about the exchanges. This is a growing phase so the more hash support the better.
If a DRK block is found, there's no exchanging or loss of fees as it can simply be moved into the X11 payout queue.

The advantage of the pool is that you can utilize your older ASIC equipment to earn you the more desired DarkCoin.

Cheers and Happy Hashing!

Donations welcome!

This pool has my full farm now, 30 rigs.  Trade well crackfoo!

[tifozi]

The rejection of Ulbricht’s motion could have rippled effects beyond the Silk Road case. Former Bitcoin Foundation vice chairman Charlie Shrem was also arrested last January and charged with Bitcoin money laundering–his trial is still pending. Projects like Darkcoin and Dark Wallet that seek to enable the anonymous use of cryptocurrency could also find themselves on thinner ice as that the limits of bitcoin’s legal anonymity have become clearer.

Judge Shoots Down ‘Bitcoin Isn’t Money’ Argument in Silk Road Trial

[Ignition75]

THIS... is true sign of professionalism.

 I would not usually do something like this, exposing a private message... but I think it is well deserved.

 MineP.it have shown to be TOP pool operators.

 In a land packed-filled with shitcoins, it is natural to not be up to speed on true innovation, and not instantly be aware of whats going on with each coin-

A simple communication exchange clearly shows the ethics behind this team.

 Miners beware !! MineP.it  ROCKS !!

 grazie mille, Dan !!

I've had very good experiences with this pool in the past as well, nice interface too.

[camosoul]

The rejection of Ulbricht’s motion could have rippled effects beyond the Silk Road case. Former Bitcoin Foundation vice chairman Charlie Shrem was also arrested last January and charged with Bitcoin money laundering–his trial is still pending. Projects like Darkcoin and Dark Wallet that seek to enable the anonymous use of cryptocurrency could also find themselves on thinner ice as that the limits of bitcoin’s legal anonymity have become clearer.

Judge Shoots Down ‘Bitcoin Isn’t Money’ Argument in Silk Road Trial

Seems every chunk of the bureaucracy finds a different way to interpret crypto based on it's desire to do harm to the citizen currently being subjected to it...

They're perfectly happy to create contradictory laws and "interpretations" because in doing so, people just don't want to touch it. Too dangerous.

"Whatever will hurt you the most, that's how we see it." - All Government, Always, Everywhere.

[coins101]

Alright, sounds like the gauntlet has been thrown. Let's wait for the main man to see what he thinks.

Hi.

Whats up? What do you want to know?

 

[coins101]

Fair play.

Nice bit of accumulation going on over the last few days.

[Brilliantrocket]

Fair play.

Nice bit of accumulation going on over the last few days.

How can our trolls even call this a pump and dump? An individual who has that many coins couldn't possibly hope to liquidate them, unless it's done over a very long time.

[lesterdsa]

Clean install of the latest version is unable to download the blocks


Xpert help needed .

[coins101]

Fair play.

Nice bit of accumulation going on over the last few days.

How can our trolls even call this a pump and dump? An individual who has that many coins couldn't possibly hope to liquidate them, unless it's done over a very long time.

He can spend all of it at any time.

If you mean exchange them for some shitcoin like LTC or fiat, why would anyone want to go backwards?

[Ignition75]

georgem is back with another morale booster...



Just keep on keeping on, and success will follow!

One way to trim the fat

OM NOM NOM NOM NOM!! SELL ME YOUR.... Nevermind...

Donation inbound!

I have been staring at the gif for the last 15 minutes....